I like your writing and rational thinking a lot better than tabloid loving Mike Masick. The simple reason that your claim to fair use was denied is because you hosted the video on youtube. Raw without any critical review, parody etc. It wasn’t married to the content that would make it a fair use defense. What many people fail to realize is that fair use is a defense for accusations of infringement and not an offensive move or verb. You cannot “fair use” something (as waaay to many ignorant media producers claim to me all the time). Fair use is only a defense for alleged infringement. Regardless if the use fits the variables for fair use most major copyright controllers (see big music labels, publishers, movie studios) will at first claim infringement to try to scare everyone and then answer to the defense of “it falls under fair use” whether in real time or in the future in court (hopefully not).
It is not a good idea for the copyright holder to determine what is and isn’t fair use. However youtube is not a court of law and they give the copyright holder the option to respond to such claims so there is nothing illegal going on. I have little doubt that they do much more than deny most fair use defenses because most people won’t fight back even if their media does fall within the fair use variables. Many times the initial defense of fair use is just a letter written in response to a Cease & Desist letter and the copyright holder may back down and not seek further recourse. If they don’t back down, like in your youtube case, then it can be escalated to a lawsuit (you could file AGAINST as well them if you feel they have inhibited your rights under the fair use clause).

In YouTube: The Big Copyright Lie, I described my love-hate relationship with YouTube, at least as it existed in way back in the dark ages of 2007. Now think back through all the videos you've watched on YouTube. How many of them contained any original content? It's perhaps the ultimate case...